logo
Sustainable Fashion Summit Turns Sweet Sixteen, But Dark Reality Bites

Sustainable Fashion Summit Turns Sweet Sixteen, But Dark Reality Bites

Forbes10-06-2025
Last week, Global Fashion Agenda (GFA), a non-profit aiming to 'accelerate impact' and 'spearhead the fashion industry towards a more sustainable future,' held its annual Global Fashion Summit, in this, its seventeenth year.
GFA's industry vision is 'Net Positivity,' and the annual Summit unites brands, manufacturers, policymakers, and other global stakeholders under its strategic guidance and impact-reduction initiatives.
However, fashion's negative impacts are increasing, not decreasing, and annual production volumes continue to rise. Global fiber production increased by a record 7% in 2023 to 124 million tonnes, a rate at which it will hit 160 million tonnes in 2030.
Such growth is wiping out incremental gains from sustainability initiatives. Stand. Earth's 2025 Fossil Free Fashion Scorecard shows that in 2024, only three brands reduced emissions in line with a 1.5°C pathway, while 17 brands increased their carbon footprint compared to their baseline. 2024 was also the first year that average temperature increases breached the 1.5°C threshold.
Sustainability demands absolute impact reductions. To borrow Yoda's wisdom, it's a case of 'do or do not—there is no 'try'.'
As the industry's sustainability shepherd, what is GFA to do after 16 years of sustainability talk and with 'net positivity' further from reality than ever? Under the banner of 'Barriers and Bridges,' in their latest annual report, GFA named three strategic action areas for 2025: Circular Economy, People, and Planet.
On the 'Circular Economy,' GFA will 'lead a harmonization effort of global Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations' that are under development in the European Union. Such work is critical since EPR fees ostensibly underpin investment in circular infrastructure in Europe, such as textile repair and recycling. These efforts should increase the utility of clothing and (in theory) reduce the demand for new fibers and new clothes – levers for decreasing production whilst generating revenue from existing resources).
On 'Planet,' GFA (somewhat unspecifically) says it will 'continue to emphasize the need for decarbonization and collective investment in Renewable Energy Initiatives.'
Fashion's emissions mostly arise from production in Asia, and its textile factories are in the crosshairs for decarbonization of energy sources, since they are the principal emissions, water, and chemical hotspots.
'People' is the GFA's third (and most detailed) area of focus in 2025, naming two research initiatives led by the non-profit:
This revelation begs a pause. Europe? The region where just a fraction of global fashion production is done, the highest rates of pay equity, and the lowest climate vulnerability on the planet? Why the sudden departure from GFA's historical focus on the industry's impact hotspots (in Asia)?
"Italy was never in the picture [at GFA], and I waited until we were sure we had enough [coverage of other] areas of the world to [then] look at Italy," explains the non-profit's CEO, Federica Marchionni. "We have to consider other countries and other brands–we're not 'global' if we don't include European countries."
Regarding GFA's previous work: 'The biggest impact programs [are in Asia] for sure, that's what we did for 15 years [but] the brands that define culture are European–you can't ignore that. They are somehow very well known [and] Europe has to be in the mix for that reason,' says the CEO.
European brands are undoubtedly economic powerhouses, and luxury brands have been implicated in several lawsuits in Italy over the past year due to systemic migrant worker exploitation in its supply chain. It's undeniable that these issues in Italy (also an inherent feature of global supply chains) be squarely addressed.
"[European] brands have the responsibility to lead by example not only on quality [but on] future-proofing their businesses. If I want to speak on behalf of the industry, we need to include Europe," stressed Marchionni.
Regarding putting Europe 'front-and-center' in GFA's strategic research efforts, what is the environmental rationale, since the industry's sustainability success depends on climate adaptation and decarbonization in Asia?
"We need to solve a global issue with sustainability, and the way I am trying to do it is to go into the settings where those conversations are most relevant – at the UN, in Davos [for example]."
"Our work was too focused on South Asia–we have the renewable energy initiative that was done in Bangladesh, the post-industrial circularity in South East Asia [where]
Marchionni is referring to a few of GFA's many multi-stakeholder initiatives, namely the Global Circular Fashion Initiative (where they convene stakeholders under a Circular Fashion Partnerships scheme deployed by funding bodies, brands, manufacturers, and recyclers); as well as an offshore wind energy in Bangladesh. But are these Asia-based efforts "done"?
Despite GFA announcing the Bangladesh offshore wind energy project at COP28 in 2023, a feasibility study into the project's potential to exist has not yet commenced.
On the same subject, a straw poll of journalists at the Summit revealed they were under the impression that the Bangladesh wind farm was already being built, thanks to funding from fashion brands.
Regarding the Circular Fashion Partnerships (CFP), the successful Bangladesh pilot led by BESTSELLER and Reverse Resources (and implemented by UNIDO) proved the business case for post-industrial recycling there, and the need for policy changes to support its industrial deployment. However, GFA is still recruiting brands (who pay to participate in the CFP program) for the Cambodia and Indonesia pilots.
Is it really time to shift strategic focus to Europe?
The devilish reality, as always, is in the details, and the 'sustainable fashion' movement at large has claimed 'intent' as 'action' for years. Science-based target (SBT) setting is one example, where fast-fashion brand Shein recently had its SBTs approved despite increasing its emissions by 176% from 2021 (its baseline year) to 2023, with no detailed explanation as to how reductions will be tracked or achieved. What is clear is Shein's publicly announced goal to achieve $60 billion in revenue by 2025 (compared to $32.5 billion in 2023), and that that will equate to higher production volumes (and emissions).
What does this 'sustainability sentiment' and 'intention' actually cost? Well, what you don't measure, you can't know.
To Marchionni's point, Europe has experienced intense industry scrutiny in the past year, with increased EU-based but global regulation and a slew of court cases in Italy that exposed sweatshop-like conditions, including at workshops manufacturing for brands Dior, Giorgio Armani, and Alviero Martini. Just ahead of the Summit, the Italian courts put Valentino under judicial review due to exploitation in its supply chain there.
GFA began worker-focused research in Italy in 2024, in partnership with PwC and Camera Della Moda, to survey perceptions of gender pay equity.
The results, presented on stage at the Summit, found that 80% of factory owners don't believe their company has a gender pay gap, while 67% of HR representatives in those companies think they do.
Perceptions aside, Europe has the highest gender pay parity in the world, with women earning, on average, 12.7% less per hour than men. Italy fares better, with women earning just 2.2% less per hour compared to men (as of 2023).
Leading industry-specific pay equity research by the Anker Research Institute found gender gaps of up to 22% in Bangladesh, 4-7% in Turkey, and 5-15% in Morocco.
The Italian (and soon-to-be French) focus seems unusual: not only does Europe have the world's highest gender pay parity, but several organizations publish actual gender pay gap data. Why research pay gap perceptions?
"It's a sensitive topic," says Marchionni, since Italian manufacturers may not be used to people questioning them (via surveys, in this case) in their factories. The CEO also pointed out that this delicate work is "not easy" for her since she is Italian but does not shy away from it.
During the Summit, Erika Andreetta, Senior Partner at PwC Italia explained that most manufacturing units in Italy are micro-sized (10 or fewer employees) and fall below reporting and regulatory radars, so there can be hidden inequity. As such, their ongoing research with GFA will focus on gender pay equity in Italy and then France.
Worker exploitation was a topic of discussion on stage at the Summit, but mainly focused on Bangladesh's below-living wages and gender-based violence problems, as explained by Kalpona Akter, Founding member and Executive Director of the Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity.
From an Italian perspective, a video was broadcast during the Summit, pre-recorded by Luca Sburlati, the President of Confindustria Moda–a Federation that aims to protect and promote the interests of the sector and its members and represents the entire Italian supply chain nationally and internationally.
In the video, Sburlati spoke on behalf of Italy's sector, representing '500,000 people, more than 40,000 companies, and a total turnover of about 100 billion yearly.' The President did not mention Italy's worker exploitation problem directly but referred to the new voluntary Accord: "Last week, we signed an important protocol to defend the legality [of our industry]
"Together we want to defend and preserve the legality of what 99% of the companies [in Italy] are doing today," he said, repeating several times in the 5-minute video the need to preserve and defend 'the uniqueness of our [supply] chain,' and concluding "we will..fight for our companies."
Atilla Kiss, Gruppo Florence
GFA
Attila Kiss, CEO of Gruppo Florence (an industrial project that promotes Italian manufacturing excellence in the luxury sector) spoke on the Summit's Ignite Stage about the recent "scandals we had in Italy," saying they were due to "pressures from the market."
He describes the situation thus: The markets are placing pressure on brands, and brands are, therefore, pushing suppliers (which are small family-owned companies that are quite weak in relation to the brands). In turn, the suppliers find a production solution that "is socially not correct."
Kiss describes Italy's micro-enterprises as being "pushed to find illegal solutions" due to pressures from brands. Overwhelmingly, the language from both speakers on the topic frames the recent exploitation as an external assault on the industry rather than a problem within it.
But 'market pressures' could simply be stated as a decline in demand for a brand's products—an expected consequence of economic downturn and geopolitical instability. Rather than producing fewer products and gaining higher-margins through efficiencies or other legitimate means, the supply chain in Italy struggles to adapt (following years of decline) leading to adoption of illegal practices.
This framing of 'market challenges' is the mechanism by which exploitation occurs across fashion's entire global supply chain, illustrating that Italy's pressures are inbuilt and top-down from growth imperatives. Italy's manufacturing woes, in essence, are those of the worldwide fashion manufacturing sector.
Despite the excellent role the Summit plays in convening and hosting industry stakeholders and sharing valuable global insights, the Strategic focus (and selected Summit snippets) suggest a wider sense of denial–denial of how far the industry is falling short on its sustainability targets, denial of how bad exploitation is in Europe (like in other production countries), and denial of how inbuilt and permanent brands' pursuit of growth is, at any economic, social or environmental cost.
I first attended the Global Fashion Summit in 2017, and I continue to hope for the best; by this year's measure, that would be GFA 'leading and spearheading' the industry, per its mission, by redirecting us onto the abatement path it set in 2020, and overseeing industry measurement of tangible actions and results against climate and social sustainability imperatives; prioritizing the industry's hotspots, and the most vulnerable, first.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

If You'd Invested $1,000 in SHIB 5 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today
If You'd Invested $1,000 in SHIB 5 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

If You'd Invested $1,000 in SHIB 5 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today

Key Points Shiba Inu originally launched as a meme coin embracing humor and internet-driven virality, much like its counterpart Dogecoin. Unlike Dogecoin, Shiba Inu has rolled out a number of applications that have real-world utility beyond peer-to-peer payments. Over the last five years, the price of Shiba Inu token has fluctuated substantially. 10 stocks we like better than Shiba Inu › When most people begin investing, their portfolios consist solely of the basics -- stocks, bonds, and cash. Cautious newcomers might even sidestep individual stock picking in favor of passive vehicles like exchange-traded funds (ETFs) or mutual funds. Over time, as investors gain confidence and learn more sophisticated strategies, they might branch out into alternative assets such as real estate, commodities, or collectibles. In recent years, however, a new contender has entered the alternative asset conversation: cryptocurrency. Both prominent stock market personalities and institutional funds have embraced the idea of digital assets as a slice of diversified portfolio allocation. While heavyweights such as Bitcoin and Ethereum dominate the spotlight, a wave of highly speculative tokens have captured the attention of retail investors. Among them is Shiba Inu (CRYPTO: SHIB), a meme coin with a dedicated fanbase online, a beloved dog mascot, and playful endorsements from high-profile figures such as Elon Musk. Let's explore the dynamics of the token, and assess if buying Shiba Inu at its launch five years ago has paid off. What is Shiba Inu coin? At its core, Shiba Inu is an altcoin created in homage to another internet favorite, Dogecoin. Launched in 2020 by a team of anonymous developers collectively known under the pseudonym Ryoshi, Shiba Inu's original purpose leaned more toward capitalizing on culture-driven trends and meme-fueled hype rather than serving as a prudent investment vehicle. Where it differs from Dogecoin, however, is in its technical foundation and subsequent product ecosystem. Unlike Dogecoin, Shiba Inu runs on the Ethereum blockchain network as an ERC-20 token. This is an important differentiator, as the Ethereum architecture provides Shiba Inu with access to a broad suite of sophisticated utilities beyond simple decentralized payments. One of its major offerings is ShibaSwap, a decentralized exchange (DEX) where users can trade the SHIB token, stake their positions to earn rewards, and even engage with metaverse-adjacent projects -- including initiatives featuring non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Is Shiba Inu a good investment? In theory, Shiba Inu's expansion into numerous applications across decentralized finance (DeFi) should help position the token beyond the speculative nature of meme culture. Let's take a look at Shiba Inu's price action since it launched to get a sense if these investments have helped the token transcend its affiliation with meme culture. Since its debut about five years ago, the price of Shiba Inu token has fluctuated dramatically, with volatility levels outpacing the turbulent norms of the cryptocurrency market. Unlike mainstream opportunities like Bitcoin, Ethereum, or XRP, the price of Shiba Inu has never traded for more than mere fractions of a penny. According to data from CoinMarketCap, Shiba Inu's price when it launched hovered around $0.00001008. In 2021, the token rose by more than 770% to a whopping $0.000088 following its listing on Coinbase. As of this writing on Aug. 14, Shiba Inu trades for $0.000013, representing a 29% gain from its launch price. That means a $1,000 investment at Shiba Inu's debut would be worth about $1,290 today. While this is respectable, it vastly underperforms the gains seen across the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) and Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX: ^IXIC) over the same time frame. Should you invest $1,000 in Shiba Inu right now? Before you buy stock in Shiba Inu, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Shiba Inu wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,106,071!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,070% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Adam Spatacco has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP. The Motley Fool recommends Coinbase Global. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. If You'd Invested $1,000 in SHIB 5 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Peter Lynch: 'Stock Market Has Been The Best Place To Be, But If You Need Money In 1 or 2 Years, You Shouldn't Be Buying Stocks'
Peter Lynch: 'Stock Market Has Been The Best Place To Be, But If You Need Money In 1 or 2 Years, You Shouldn't Be Buying Stocks'

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Peter Lynch: 'Stock Market Has Been The Best Place To Be, But If You Need Money In 1 or 2 Years, You Shouldn't Be Buying Stocks'

Renowned investor Peter Lynch has underscored the importance of long-term investment strategies, advising against the pursuit of quick returns. What Happened: Lynch offered his insights to those looking forward to retirement. He cautioned that the stock market is not a short-term playground. 'The stock market's been the best place to be over the last 10 years, 30 years, 100 years. But if you need money in 1 or 2 years, you shouldn't be buying stocks,' Lynch advised. He further explained that substantial returns that can significantly alter one's lifestyle demand more than just a couple of years of investment. Hence, those planning to retire within the next five to ten years should contemplate investing in the market presently. Lynch also revealed his approach of identifying excellent companies in struggling sectors. 'I'm always on the lookout for great companies in lousy industries. Also Read: Investment Guru Peter Lynch: 'Often Great Investments Are The Ones Where Everyone Else Will Think You Are Crazy' A great industry that's growing too fast, such as computers or medical technology, attracts too much attention and too many competitors,' he said. He stressed that the best investments are not always the big players like Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT), or Google LLC (NASDAQ:GOOGL). Rather, companies that are flourishing in industries facing difficulties can yield better overall returns. Lynch's advice comes at a time when many are seeking guidance on retirement planning. His emphasis on long-term investment strategies over quick returns aligns with the principle of patience in investing. His strategy of identifying thriving companies in struggling industries provides a fresh perspective, challenging the conventional wisdom of investing in big names. This could potentially lead to better returns and a more secure retirement for many. Read Next Investment Guru Peter Lynch: 'If You Can't Explain To An 11-Year-Old In 2 Minutes Or Less Why You Own The Stock, You Shouldn't Own It' Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Peter Lynch: 'Stock Market Has Been The Best Place To Be, But If You Need Money In 1 or 2 Years, You Shouldn't Be Buying Stocks' originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

The New Talent Playbook: From Build And Buy To Bridge, Borrow, And AI
The New Talent Playbook: From Build And Buy To Bridge, Borrow, And AI

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

The New Talent Playbook: From Build And Buy To Bridge, Borrow, And AI

Most organizations believe they have a leadership talent pipeline. What they actually have is an illusion of readiness. Roles are being reshaped in months, not years. Succession plans expire before they're tested. And the leaders needed for tomorrow—tech fluent, adaptive and globally minded—are the very ones companies don't know how to grow. The numbers reveal the gap. The World Economic Forum reports that on average, workers can expect that two-fifths (39%) of their existing skill sets will be transformed or become outdated over the 2025–2030 period. Gallup finds fewer than a third of employees believe they have real opportunities to learn and grow and less than half received any training last year. Only one in three employees aiming for a new role feels equipped to succeed. The cost isn't abstract. Unfilled leadership roles slow growth, drain revenue, stifle innovation and erode confidence. Consider a division head retiring unexpectedly. The successor identified on paper isn't ready, and six months pass before the team regains direction—while competitors move ahead. To understand how organizations should respond, I spoke with Lynda Gratton, Professor of Management Practice at London Business School, a global advisor to Fortune 500 companies and the author of best-selling books including The 100-Year Life, Living Strategy and Redesigning Work. For more than three decades, Gratton's research has reframed how organizations think about leadership, skills and the future of work. She has watched the scaffolding of old systems loosen, and her conclusion is direct: the playbook must expand. 'For years there were two stable strategies,' Gratton explained. 'One was build—you bring people in as graduates, you move them around, they become embedded in the culture and ready for the top jobs. The other was buy—when the pipeline isn't enough, you go to the market. Those worked pretty well.' Gratton describes build and buy as cultural anchors—steady, predictable, tied to values. But, as she emphasizes, 'while they remain the core, they are no longer sufficient on their own.' What's needed now is a repertoire that preserves continuity and also builds adaptability. Build and Buy: The Anchors of Continuity From a strategic standpoint, build and buy remain the foundation of leadership systems. They preserve culture, protect institutional memory and provide a stable core for succession. But in a world where work is shifting faster than careers can keep pace, they must be complemented by approaches that reach across boundaries. Bridge: Unlocking Talent Across Boundaries 'One adaptive strategy is bridge,' Gratton said. 'There is talent within the organization, but it's not doing the job we need it to be doing in the future. So we bridge across jobs. Conversations about skills are what matter, so people can use their abilities to move into different sorts of roles.' Bridging is a response to the mismatch between current capability and future demand. A compliance leader moving into sustainability governance or a facilities manager leading an IoT rollout are not one-off shifts. They're deliberate investments in cross-boundary capacity that keep organizations competitive. But bridging fails if development remains bolted on instead of built in. Gallup reports that time away from responsibilities is the top barrier to growth, according to 89% of CHROs, 37% of managers and 41% of employees. The obsession with conventional career ladders continues. While nearly 70% of employees are looking for a new role within their organization, only 28% would consider a lateral one. Career growth inside companies still follows a narrow script—progress often defined by vertical movement alone. Borrow: Bringing in Talent Without Owning It 'The other adaptive strategy is borrow—you borrow from the external labor market for a short period of time,' Gratton explained. 'The article Diane Gerson and I wrote in Harvard Business Review about freelancers was important: 'I want your job, but not your work.'' Borrowing is a way to build agility. Contractors, consultants, gig specialists and even fractional executives give companies access to capabilities at exactly the moment they're needed. But there are risks. 'If you outsource too much, you weaken the very culture you're trying to sustain,' Gratton cautioned. 'Even the most freelance-heavy organizations have a small center that defines identity and strategy.' Fractional leadership shows the point. CFOs, CMOs and even CEOs are now hired on fractional terms. These roles can stabilize organizations in transition but don't provide continuity. Without translating that know-how into durable capability inside, companies risk dependency instead of growth. Borrowing works best when paired with bridging—capturing the practices and knowledge from external experts and embedding them into internal teams. AI: The Fifth Force in Workforce Strategy 'AI changes the way we think about talent pipelines,' Gratton told me. 'It shrinks the half-life of skills, and it lets you anticipate talent needs much faster than before.' AI is no longer just an efficiency tool. It can act as a sensor, spotting succession risks, forecasting gaps and aligning leaders to emerging priorities. 'When you use AI in succession planning,' Gratton added, 'you can see that someone is about to retire and quickly identify who could step in—with their development tailored to the job they're moving into.' That makes AI one strategy in its own right. It can augment talent management by providing sharper analytics, uncovering hidden skills and dynamically matching people to opportunities. But the debate runs deeper: what happens when AI begins to take on the critical tasks of talent itself? Some outsourcing may make sense. AI can run financial forecasts, write code, draft legal documents, generate marketing copy, simulate supply chain risks or even triage customer service inquiries. It can screen applications, model workforce needs and build learning simulations faster than humans ever could. Done well, this can unburden leaders and free people to spend more time on judgment, relationships and strategy. But there are lines AI cannot cross. Discernment, empathy, strategic choice—these are the core of leadership. No machine can substitute for an executive weighing the trade-offs of a merger, deciding whether to enter a new market or leading people through crisis. If organizations push too far in outsourcing these calls, they risk hollowing out the very capabilities they claim to be developing. The open question is impact. Will AI strip away valuable developmental experiences by taking on tasks that once helped grow future leaders? Or will it elevate human talent by removing low-value burdens and giving leaders more space to focus on what matters most? The jury is still out. As AI evolves, the question is not just how it supports talent strategy, but whether it will become part of the talent pool itself. For now, it remains a tool—powerful, indispensable, but not a substitute for human leadership. Which Moves Work Best? At this point, a fair question for any leader is: which of these strategies—build, buy, bridge, borrow or AI—will actually work in the future? The answer is not straightforward. One could argue you need all of them, or at least systems that allow each to be deployed when the moment demands it. The deeper point is that talent strategies need to be adaptable. They should be guided by business strategy and context, not by rigid ideas about roles. When companies typecast roles—assuming, for example, that senior executives must always be built internally or that technical specialists must always be bought externally—they limit how talent can be leveraged. A more powerful approach is to treat the five strategies as a variable system. That means in talent reviews, the conversation should not presuppose a single strategy. Instead, each leadership need should be examined through all five possibilities. Could this role be bridged across functions? Could it be borrowed in the short term? Could it be rebuilt through AI-driven development insights? The value lies in calibrating across strategies rather than defaulting to one. Gratton, in her work, emphasizes this danger: when talent strategies are tied too tightly to roles, organizations miss the chance to see capability in different contexts. That's where companies get stuck. The Disruptor's Advantage 'The disruptors—new entrants—build from a different model,' Gratton said. 'They use AI, operate with freelance groups and design for agility from the start. Change won't come from inside incumbents—it will be driven from outside.' Talent markets are shifting as quickly as work expectations themselves. The Great Resignation has given way to what Gallup calls the Great Detachment—fewer people moving but more disconnecting from the meaning of corporate careers. Gratton's research confirms the trend: new talent ecosystems are emerging, built for speed and flexibility. In that environment, Gratton believes the edge belongs to future-fluent leaders—those who combine technological fluency with distinctly human strengths like discernment, critical thinking and the ability to catalyze change. Companies that cling to outdated tools—nine-box grids, tenure as a proxy for readiness, succession indicators that miss real potential—risk being overtaken entirely. Disruptors hold the advantage because they aren't tied to legacy systems. Incumbents need to unlearn quickly if they want to withstand the shocks ahead. Keeping the Cultural Core Intact Moves may multiply, but culture depends on anchor leaders. 'You couldn't anticipate a culture where every single person's a freelancer,' Gratton warned. 'Because… what is this place, and how does it work?' A clear framework emerged from our conversation: The danger is not years away—it's here. Pipelines are thinning now. Successors are unready when the call comes. Promising leaders are leaving before their potential is realized. Organizations that keep postponing decisions will see their cultures wear down under the strain. As Gratton put it: 'If you're not shaping the future, you're being shaped by it.' Shaping the future of talent isn't abstract. It happens in every vacancy left open, every leader not developed, every skill gap ignored until it fractures the system. Readiness is only real when leaders build it as they go.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store